QM + GR = black holes cannot exist

[PhysBang]

This is mendacious, I've referred repeatedly to Einstein's Leyden Address where he said "empty space" in its physical relation is neither homogeneous nor isotropic,

Sure. And everyone who looks at that address and has done a problem in GR sees Einstein dumbing down how his tensor mathematics works on spacetime. So people always point out that this address says nothing about how anyone, including Einstein, does physics.

The appropriate response, if you had a coherent point, would be to walk through a physics example, or better yet an example from Einstein, where inhomogeneous space is used to solve the problem of the example. Yet you never do this, probably because you haven't learned how to do a physics problem in GR.

The failure to be able to produce this kind of example is evidence that your idea does not have merit enough to be considered serious physics or even a serious interpretation of physics.

and I've referred to Inhomogeneous Vacuum: An Alternative Interpretation of Curved Spacetime,

That one group of foreign language scientists uses the same word in a paper on one specific example that Einstein used, apparently once, does not indicate that they are discussing the same thing. Their specific example is about modelling the path of light rays. Even if they are able to match one specific physics application, there is no sign in that paper that their idea can be used to do anything else in gravitational physics, so it is not evidence that inhomogeneous space can be used to model gravity and it is not evidence that Einstein used the same methods.

More importantly, this is not news to you. You know that people have raised the limitations of this study and have asked you to show how to use this idea of inhomogeneous space to show how an object falls. Yet you have never tried to do this.

I've responded repeatedly to PhysBang's requests to explain how inhomogeneous space results in gravity, such as here.

With the same dodging the question: providing a restatement of your claims with no physics example and then crying like a small child that you are being harassed in order to shift attention away from your failure.

I have told the truth,

Clearly you have not told only the truth.

I haven't provided a citation that makes the opposite claim of what I say the citation is saying,

Why lie here now? You provided a citation that you said showed that gravity wasn't caused by spacetime curvature when the citation claimed, multiple times, that gravity was caused by spacetime curvature. Do you think that people cannot follow your own links? Do you think they can't go back in this thread?

and I don't dodge hard questions.

Like you are still doing?

What I discuss is physics, PhysBang's diatribe is not.

Of course I'm not discussing physics: I'm discussing what you are offering.

 

[wellwisher]

Curvature of space-time does not explain gravitational pressure, where pressure = force/area. Gravity curves space-time but curved space-time does not generate pressure, or else SR by altering space-time, would cause space ships to implode.

The pressure is distinct from space-time, with gravity impacting space-time by curving it and matter via pressurizing it. It is the pressure that causes phase changes such as iron being solid at 6000C in the center of the earth. Pressure interfaces gravity with the other three forces via these phase changes in matter. This goes beyond GR since GR is a subset of gravity (GR plus Pressure).

 

[PhysBang]

Curvature of space-time does not explain gravitational pressure, where pressure = force/area. Gravity curves space-time but curved space-time does not generate pressure, or else SR by altering space-time, would cause space ships to implode.

I don't know where you got this bizarre idea.

But you still haven't answered my previous question: is there pressure in Newtonian universal gravity?

 

[origin]

Curvature of space-time does not explain gravitational pressure, where pressure = force/area.

Sure it does.

Gravity curves space-time but curved space-time does not generate pressure,

Sure it does.

or else SR by altering space-time, would cause space ships to implode.

Some of the stuff you come up with is so odd.

 

[river]

Still waiting...

You'll be waiting awhile

Mainstream has NO idea of gravity , other than some abstract mathematical representation , of which has no basis in reality

 

[Beer w/Straw]

What are you saying?

 

[krash661]

other than some abstract mathematical representation , of which has no basis in reality

i typed this on another forum,
i'm in the " universe is mathematics " sector.
IMO everything is mathematics being perceived and then manifest in the form we perceive it in.
if that makes sense.

 

[paddoboy]

You'll be waiting awhile
Mainstream has NO idea of gravity , other than some abstract mathematical representation , of which has no basis in reality

Yet that same abstract mathematical representation has been duly measured via GP-B...

What are you saying?

river likes to present himself as a "thinker" and will oppose anything mainstream just for the sake of it, without thinking it through.
So although we do not know exactly what gravity is and why it is, we do know it manifests itself, when the flat topological construct of spacetime is altered in the presence of mass/energy.

 

[river]

What are you saying?

I'm saying that so far gravity has not been defined physically

 

[nimbus]

If you were to ask him now, maybe he'd have a different view. Tell you what, why don't you email him? Refer him to page 501 where he says light slows to zero as it approaches r=2M,

That’s slows to zero according to Schwarzschild coordinates, read the sentence just before he mentions the clock hovering.

Farsight, you seemed to have forgotten he is not referring to Kruskal-Szekeres when he says on page 508…

we know for certain that spacetime is perfectly well behaved there

Remember he says on page 506…

if we did not have a good set of coordinates ( such as Kruskal-Szekeres ) how could we tell if the horizon was real or not?”

That’s leads to the statement on page 508 ...

we know for certain that spacetime is perfectly well behaved there

my bold

 

[nimbus]

Yet that same abstract mathematical representation has been duly measured via GP-B...

river likes to present himself as a "thinker" and will oppose anything mainstream just for the sake of it, without thinking it through.
.

Ol' man river, that ol' man river
He must know something, but he don't say nothing
That ol' man river, he just keep rollin' alon.


Don't mean to muddy the waters.

 

[river]

i typed this on another forum,
i'm in the " universe is mathematics " sector.
IMO everything is mathematics being perceived and then manifest in the form we perceive it in.
if that makes sense.

Well there are many that think that the Universe is mathematics , not surprising really , since this is the foundation on SR and GR , QM and so on , and hence our thinking of the Universe

The thing is though mathematics is based on the symbolisms of what we know , each number represents a physical thing

Logic , fine

But happens is that thought becomes restricted to the paradigms that are conclusions of mathematics

Don't get me wrong mathematics is important to the understanding of the space and objects in which we live , Universe

But at the same time , mathematics , won't discover some new thinking upon the Universe

 

[krash661]

mathematics is the first element showing anything.
new thinking is derived from the mathematics.
if i remember correctly, you agree with that RJ character on black holes supposedly not existing.
the thing about that topic is,
the person who is referenced in that topic is the author of that paper.
her " new discovery " was derived from her mathematics.
it was the mathematics that told her it was incorrect.
it was the mathematics that gave her, her theorem.
all in all, i agree with paddoby ,
" river likes to present himself as a "thinker" and will oppose anything mainstream just for the sake of it ".

 

[krash661]

mathematics is everything,
physics is just words to describe mathematics, in a non numerical manner.

 

[river]

mathematics is the first element showing anything.
new thinking is derived from the mathematics.
if i remember correctly, you agree with that RJ character on black holes supposedly not existing.
the thing about that topic is,
the person who is referenced in that topic is the author of that paper.
her " new discovery " was derived from her mathematics.
it was the mathematics that told her it was incorrect.
it was the mathematics that gave her, her theorem.
all in all, i agree with paddoby ,
" river likes to present himself as a "thinker" and will oppose anything mainstream just for the sake of it ".

I never referred to any paper by anyone

The the non-existence of BH was a rational and the logical conclusions based on my own thinking

 

[Beer w/Straw]

Can I report river for the post?

Yes, mathematics is so evil that anyone trying to model should be executed as a terrorist.

Kill me.

 

[paddoboy]

The the non-existence of BH was a rational and the logical conclusions based on my own thinking

Except its not rational, nor is it logical, unless one can explain by other means the observational effects on spacetime, and cosmological matter within a particular vicinity.
Oh, and of course what you see as illogical and irrational is grossly misplaced, as the scientific paper you base that reasoning on, was specifically on the quantum effects and interactions...At best, it presented some doubt on the nature of the EH, at worst, being unobservable, it is just plain wrong.
It in no way invalidated BH's.

 

[krash661]

I never referred to any paper by anyone

The the non-existence of BH was a rational and the logical conclusions based on my own thinking

you don't understand my comment.
please read again.

 

[krash661]

Can I report river for the post?

Yes, mathematics is so evil that anyone trying to model should be executed as a terrorist.

Kill me.

, this actually made me smile.

 

[tashja]

I don't know. Maybe tashja could ask the profs why a pencil falls down.

Prof. Baez:

The space in the room is slightly curved, but the pencil falls down because of the curvature of spacetime! It only takes a tiny bit of spacetime curvature for the motion of a thrown pencil to be what we see, because in relativity 1 second equals about 300,000 kilometers (with the speed of light as a conversion factor). When you throw a pencil through the room, it is tracing out a geodesic - a straight as possible path - not in space but in spacetime. The slight curvature of spacetime is enough to do this.